Difference between a No1 mk3 and a no4 mk1

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Deff Jaw**

jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote:
Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

The reason why I said it LOOKED like trash. The look of the SMLE Mk3 is much better IMO. Though how is Mosin Nagant 91/30 not very accurate an old Marine Corp veteran bought one and has put 10 rounds of the original russian ammo onto a target at 100 meters with less that 1 1/2" group. Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Great. 100yds. I was shooting at 300yds, and while it wasn't clipping the ground or anything, but it was wild compared to my Garand or No1 MkIII. Hell, my Arisaka out shot it. It's a fine conscripts weaon, but not much more that that.

Your last sentence is embolism worthy, the Mosin bolt is a horrible design compared to anything remotely modern. It's designed to take abuse, that'a about it. It's not smooth, it's not quiet, it's not even that reliable. And since 99% of the Mosins in the US are importers, none of the bolts match. So it's a pig in a poke.

Pig in a poke.... now there is a phrase I have not heard in YEARS! (yet it fits here oh so well)

Also Deff, 1 1/2 Moa groups (If they can be called that with that spread) at 100 yards is horrible for a bolt action. For reference, my Rem 700 chambered in 223 can shoot what is called a "Dime" at that range. Which means that I can drop 3 rounds so close together that I can cover the shot group with a dime.

Ah then Arisaka rifle. How does that shoot? One of the few rifles from that timeframe that I have not shot...... yet.

A 1 1/2" group at 100 meters sounds from you like its a bad thing. Remember it was using original russian ammo, iron sights, AND it was 10 rounds not 3. Saying that you can put 3 rounds on a dime at 100 meters with a SCOPE is nothing at all many rifles can do that and people. Now shooting out a dime at 500 meters is an achievement at 100 its nothing.

**jp400**

Anyone who knows anything about shooting will tell you that a bolt action rifle that can't shoot at least MOA would not be considered a "good" rifle.

Tell you what, I will grab my incomplete 1903 from my work bench downstairs and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that I will out shoot you with it any day of the week.

**Deff Jaw**

You are missing the point of my post read it again. A rifle that can shoot 1 1/2" group with 1960s or before russian ammo is good. Russian ammo is and has never been consistant.

**jp400**

Deff Jaw wrote: You are missing the point of my post read it again. A rifle that can shoot 1 1/2" group with 1960s or before russian ammo is good..

jp400 wrote:Tell you what, I will grab my incomplete 1903 from my work bench downstairs and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that I will out shoot you with it any day of the week.

I believe it is you who is missing the point. Which is no matter how you look at it, 1 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards for a bolt action rifle is NOT GOOD!

My Springfield I'm willing to bet is much older then your silly M/N and ill even throw vintage surplus or wolf ammo in the sucker and still out shoot you.

Deff Jaw wrote:Russian ammo is and has never been consistant

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Seriously, putting knowledge and common sense aside a 30 second google search would prove you wrong on this. I shoot Russian Made .308 and 223 through my rifles and it is just as good as any other comparable plinking ammo on the market.

The match grade stuff aint bad either. (Unless you compare it to Hornady, but lets be honest, that ain't really fare lol)

**Deff Jaw**

You are still missing the point the ammo that he used was made before 1960. Which all Russian ammo before then was not consistant at all. Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

**jp400**

Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

**Stormrider**

jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

**jp400**

And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

**Corpsesarefun**

Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

**Stormrider**

corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

**Corpsesarefun**

Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Held? yes.

Fired? hell no

**jp400**

Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

And you have missed the point I was trying to make by a few miles.

Also I will choose a proven yet simple design that will work every time I pull the trigger no matter what over some over engineered "Professional" firearm that I fear will not work just cause I spent the day out in the desert and there might be a little grit in the action.

**Mannahnin**

I think that's a false dichotomy. AKs are extraordinarily reliable and durable, but they're not great other than that. There are other weapons which are of higher quality and still reliable.

**Stormrider**

jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

And you have missed the point I was trying to make by a few miles.

Also I will choose a proven yet simple design that will work every time I pull the trigger no matter what over some over engineered "Professional" firearm that I fear will not work just cause I spent the day out in the desert and there might be a little grit in the action.

Okay, our definitions of quality are different. I agree with the sentiment about the AK's tolerances. I chock that up to reliability and functionality more than quality. My definition of a quality firearm would be an MP30/MP34 or a C.96 Broomhandle Mauser pistol. They were finely made pieces of machinery. I consider the AK to be crude by that standard, but good luck breaking it. We are in agreement, just from different directions.

**Deff Jaw**

The best quality, reliable, easy to make, easy to maintain and the first is the Sturmgewehr. No assault rifle has been better.

**jp400**

Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

And you have missed the point I was trying to make by a few miles.

Also I will choose a proven yet simple design that will work every time I pull the trigger no matter what over some over engineered "Professional" firearm that I fear will not work just cause I spent the day out in the desert and there might be a little grit in the action.

Okay, our definitions of quality are different. I agree with the sentiment about the AK's tolerances. I chock that up to reliability and functionality more than quality. My definition of a quality firearm would be an MP30/MP34 or a C.96 Broomhandle Mauser pistol. They were finely made pieces of machinery. I consider the AK to be crude by that standard, but good luck breaking it. We are in agreement, just from different directions.

I agree that we agree, but from different angles.

Also I own a C.96 and must say that it is quality through and through.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deff Jaw wrote: No assault rifle has been better.

**Deff Jaw**

jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

And you have missed the point I was trying to make by a few miles.

Also I will choose a proven yet simple design that will work every time I pull the trigger no matter what over some over engineered "Professional" firearm that I fear will not work just cause I spent the day out in the desert and there might be a little grit in the action.

Okay, our definitions of quality are different. I agree with the sentiment about the AK's tolerances. I chock that up to reliability and functionality more than quality. My definition of a quality firearm would be an MP30/MP34 or a C.96 Broomhandle Mauser pistol. They were finely made pieces of machinery. I consider the AK to be crude by that standard, but good luck breaking it. We are in agreement, just from different directions.

I agree that we agree, but from different angles.

Also I own a C.96 and must say that it is quality through and through.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deff Jaw wrote: No assault rifle has been better.

Then what is the best assault rifle?

**jp400**

AR family, Ak Family, Steyr Aug, FN FAL, SA80, H&K G36, Bushmaster ACR, FN Scar...

Just to name a few off the top of my head at the moment that are better. There is no such thing as "The best" mainly due to the endless list of options out there. All you can really do is go down said list and compare rifle A to Rifle B and see which is better.

**Deff Jaw**

Could you please prove your point. Because as far as I am concerned the MP44 is not the most accurate, as reliable as an AK 47, provides more stopping power than most assault rifles, and remember most "assault rifles" copy, but have NEVER beaten the MP44. One of the main reasons is that the MP44's muzzle doesn't really climb on you as long as you hold it correctly.

**jp400**

Deff Jaw wrote:Could you please prove your point. Because as far as I am concerned the MP44 is not the most accurate, as reliable as an AK 47, provides more stopping power than most assault rifles, and remember most "assault rifles" copy, but have NEVER beaten the MP44. One of the main reasons is that the MP44's muzzle doesn't really climb on you as long as you hold it correctly.

Contradict yourself much? You basically just said:

"Other rifles are more accurate, more reliable, and have better stopping power... But the MP44 has never been beaten!!"

**Stormrider**

Deff Jaw wrote:Could you please prove your point. Because as far as I am concerned the MP44 is not the most accurate, as reliable as an AK 47, provides more stopping power than most assault rifles, and remember most "assault rifles" copy, but have NEVER beaten the MP44. One of the main reasons is that the MP44's muzzle doesn't really climb on you as long as you hold it correctly.

That could be said of any Assault Rifle, there's far to many variables to lay a blanket statement like that down. Just because the Sturmgewher was first doesn't automatically make it the best.

I'm assuming you've got lots of experience to share with us concerning MP44's right? All of your range time? Considering there's a scant few here in the US that aren't in musems, I highly doubt it.

I find your Germano-centrism disturbing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote: Nothing that the russians made is high quality back then.

Ever hear of an Ak47?

Please, no. The Type I AK looks like someone's shop project. On the inside and out. The Type II's receiver is at least milled.

Guns are not meant to look pretty

The Ak47 is one of the most reliable and easily repairable ballistic weapons out there.

You ever held one?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:And yet, it is the most widely produced, respect and used rifle ever produced by any country.

I rest my case on that fact alone.

Not saying it isn't good, but it's a crude bastard to be sure. It's a true conscript's weapon.

And you have missed the point I was trying to make by a few miles.

Also I will choose a proven yet simple design that will work every time I pull the trigger no matter what over some over engineered "Professional" firearm that I fear will not work just cause I spent the day out in the desert and there might be a little grit in the action.

Okay, our definitions of quality are different. I agree with the sentiment about the AK's tolerances. I chock that up to reliability and functionality more than quality. My definition of a quality firearm would be an MP30/MP34 or a C.96 Broomhandle Mauser pistol. They were finely made pieces of machinery. I consider the AK to be crude by that standard, but good luck breaking it. We are in agreement, just from different directions.

I agree that we agree, but from different angles.

Also I own a C.96 and must say that it is quality through and through.

Consider it a flank march on the battlefield of ideas.

**Deff Jaw**

Stormrider wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote:Could you please prove your point. Because as far as I am concerned the MP44 is not the most accurate, as reliable as an AK 47, provides more stopping power than most assault rifles, and remember most "assault rifles" copy, but have NEVER beaten the MP44. One of the main reasons is that the MP44's muzzle doesn't really climb on you as long as you hold it correctly.

That could be said of any Assault Rifle, there's far to many variables to lay a blanket statement like that down. Just because the Sturmgewher was first doesn't automatically make it the best.

I'm assuming you've got lots of experience to share with us concerning MP44's right? All of your range time? Considering there's a scant few here in the US that aren't in musems, I highly doubt it.

I find your Germano-centrism disturbing.

Let me put it this way my uncle OWNS a MG 42, MG 08-15, AND a MP44. Though I have only put 150 rounds through his MP44 myself. I have also fire an ORIGINAL AK47. Bear in mind that the only original AK47s are the ones with milled recievers.

On second note he owns many other weapons. I only own a S.M.L.E. Mk3 and a Kar 98.

**EmilCrane**

OP is a german weapon centrist. The Stg-44 was revolutionary for its time but by no means the best AR ever made.

No real use arguing with these kind of people. As far as functional weapon differences between the MkIII and the No4 there isn't really. The barrel is different, thats about it.

Personally I'd take a SMLE over a K98 any day.

**jp400**

Deff Jaw wrote:Let me put it this way my uncle OWNS a MG 42, MG 08-15, AND a MP44. Though I have only put 150 rounds through his MP44 myself. I have also fire an ORIGINAL AK47. Bear in mind that the only original AK47s are the ones with milled recievers.

Pics or it didn't happen! Seriously....

**Stormrider**

Deff Jaw wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote:Could you please prove your point. Because as far as I am concerned the MP44 is not the most accurate, as reliable as an AK 47, provides more stopping power than most assault rifles, and remember most "assault rifles" copy, but have NEVER beaten the MP44. One of the main reasons is that the MP44's muzzle doesn't really climb on you as long as you hold it correctly.

That could be said of any Assault Rifle, there's far to many variables to lay a blanket statement like that down. Just because the Sturmgewher was first doesn't automatically make it the best.

I'm assuming you've got lots of experience to share with us concerning MP44's right? All of your range time? Considering there's a scant few here in the US that aren't in musems, I highly doubt it.

I find your Germano-centrism disturbing.

Let me put it this way my uncle OWNS a MG 42, MG 08-15, AND a MP44. Though I have only put 150 rounds through his MP44 myself. I have also fire an ORIGINAL AK47. Bear in mind that the only original AK47s are the ones with milled recievers.

On second note he owns many other weapons. I only own a S.M.L.E. Mk3 and a Kar 98.

The Type II Ak-47 was the first to have a milled receiver. Type I's came about from 1947 until 1952. Those are stamped. I would love to see some footage of the weapons is action.

**Deff Jaw**

No the first receivers for an AK 47 is a milled. The first stamped one was in 1959. Which the name was changed to AKM.

**jp400**

I say again, pics or it didn't happen. Stop skirting it!

**Deff Jaw**

Why do you want pics.

**jp400**

Cause everyone here thinks you are lying.

jp400 wrote:
Deff Jaw wrote:Let me put it this way my uncle OWNS a MG 42, MG 08-15, AND a MP44. Though I have only put 150 rounds through his MP44 myself. I have also fire an ORIGINAL AK47. Bear in mind that the only original AK47s are the ones with milled recievers.

Pics or it didn't happen! Seriously....

Stormrider wrote:. I would love to see some footage of the weapons is action.

**Stormrider**

Deff Jaw wrote:No the first receivers for an AK 47 is a milled. The first stamped one was in 1959. Which the name was changed to AKM.

Uber

AK-47 1948–51, 7.62x39mm—The very earliest models, with the Type 1 stamped sheet metal receiver, are now very rare
AK-47 1952, 7.62x39mm—Has a milled receiver and wooden buttstock and handguard. Barrel and chamber are chrome plated to resist corrosion

A very simple search on Wiki nets wonders.